Ashwin Ramesh Mansharamani vs Ito on 1 March, 2004
6. As against this, it was contended by the learned Departmental Representative of the revenue that the totality of the facts and circumstances reveals that the transaction was in the nature of trade because there was land transactions in earlier years also. It was also contended that this is an admitted fact that the firm and company with which the assessee was associated, were doing business in real estate. It was contended that the borrowed fund was also invested and hence, intention is not for investment only. Regarding the intention at the time of purchase also, it was also contended that since borrowed funds were also invested, the intention was not for investment. It was also contended that the judgment in the cases of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra) and Chawla Architects & Consultants (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative, are not applicable in this case because the facts are different as there was investment of surplus funds only in these cases, but in the present case, borrowed funds were also invested and hence the ratio laid down in these jdgments are not applicable in the present case. Reliance was placed on the order of the revenue authorities and it was contended that the totality of facts suggest that the transaction was in the nature of trade and hence, the order of the revenue authorities should be upheld.